Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India And Ors vs Rajendra Sharma And Ors on 1 July, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6692/2011 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 6081/2011 Date of Order :: 1st July, 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Manish Sharma, Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT:
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the orders dated 22nd November, 2010 as also the order dated 23rd March, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur adjudicated the application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC directing the petitioners defendants no. 4 to 6 to keep the amount in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank at the time when it was due or payable to respondent no.4 M/s. Maha Laxmi Projects through partner Narendra Kumar Agarwal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioners are required to keep the amount lying with them, in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank only when the said amount becomes due or payable to the respondent no.4. The amount has yet not become due or payable to the respondent and despite that the plaintiff-respondent has filed the contempt petition in the same court, wherein the notices have been issued and the officers of the Railways have been summoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners further canvassed that the conditional order of the learned trial court may be made clear in terms that the said amount lying with the petitioners is required to be deposited in any nationalized bank in a fixed deposit only at the time when it becomes due or payable to respondent no.4.
Learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned orders and stated the same to be just and proper and it did not require any clarification.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it goes without saying that the relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant writ petition is the same, which has already been granted by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2010. The impugned order is tangible and speaks for itself and the same does not need any clarification. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are required to put the said amount lying with them in any Nationalized Bank in a fixed deposit only at the time when it becomes due or payable to the respondent no.4 With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands disposed of.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
DK/-